Wife Says She Feels Unsafe When Brother-in-Law Shows Up When She's Home Alone. Husband Says She's 'Overreacting'
A woman is looking for outside perspectives on how she's handling her brother-in-law's unexpected visits
The family member's unannounced arrivals are starting to make the woman feel uncomfortable
After addressing the situation, the woman alleges she is getting blamed for "making things awkward" in the familyA woman is seeking feedback on how she addressed her brother-in-law after he repeatedly arrived at her home 'unannounced.' The original poster (OP), who identified herself as a 28-year-old female, explained her issues with the family member on Reddit's "Am I the A------" forum.
The woman started her post with a little background. She lives in a 'quiet' home in Michigan with her husband of four years, Chris, 30. It's 'nothing fancy,' and lately things haven't felt safe. Tyler, Chris's older brother, 32, allegedly keeps showing up uninvited 'a lot.'
'Not when Chris is home. Nope,' the OP writes. 'It's always when he's at work or running errands or out with friends. Like last Tuesday, I was in the middle of folding laundry and the doorbell rang.'
She added: 'I opened the door, and there he was, smiling like nothing was weird.'
After she asked for a reason, he allegedly responded with 'Just checking something.' That's the response he 'always' gives. Though, he's never revealed what he's checking or given an actual reason.
'He just walks around, looks at random stuff in the garage, stares at the thermostat like it's gonna tell him a secret and then sits at the kitchen table like he lives here,' the OP writes. 'I started to feel super uncomfortable.'
When the woman explained the visits to her husband, she received an unexpected response.
'I thought he'd be weirded out too, but no,' the OP claims. 'He just shrugged and went, 'Maybe he needs something. You know how he is.''
Part of the poster agreed, but still weirded out: 'Yeah, Tyler's always been a little off, but this feels different.'
is now available in the Apple App Store! Download it now for the most binge-worthy celeb content, exclusive video clips, astrology updates and more!
The woman took it upon herself to establish a boundary with her brother-in-law. The most recent time he came over, she told him, 'I'd really prefer if you didn't stop by when Chris isn't home. It makes me a little uncomfortable.'
In response, he silently stared at her, then smirked and said 'Sure, whatever you want.' But she alleges he said it in a certain tone, 'You know the one.'
Now, the OP claims Chris is mad at her for 'making things awkward.' He refuses to talk about it with her and instead claims she's 'overreacting.' Even Chris's mom asked her why she's 'being cold' to Tyler.
'I don't feel safe. I'm not trying to start drama. I'm trying to protect myself,' the OP writes. 'Am I seriously being too sensitive here?'
The woman explained she wanted to give Tyler the benefit of the doubt, but she doesn't like how she feels while around him. She described it as a 'creepy, quiet tension. Like he's watching me.'
'Now I've basically banned my brother-in-law from our house unless Chris is home,' the OP finished. 'Everyone's acting like I committed a federal hate crime,'
Then, the OP left it to Reddit to decide if she was the a-------.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. 'Do not let your husband and his weird a-- family gaslight you,' one commenter writes. 'It's either that [your] husband thinks you're cheating, and sicced his brother to check on you, or [the] brother wants you for himself. I know Reddit is quick to jump on the divorce train, but… girl jump on that divorce train.'
Another made the simple suggestion: 'Start checking your house for hidden cameras.'
Someone else recommends leaving whenever Tyler stops by. "The next time he rings the bell grab your purse. Go out the door, 'Oh, sorry. I'm just heading out. You'll have to come back when Chris is here. Have a good day.'"
Read the original article on People
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Cosmopolitan
a day ago
- Cosmopolitan
A choking ban and ID checks: all the ways porn is changing in 2025 — and what needs to come next
It's a transformative time for pornography. Long gone are the days where explicit sexual content could only be found in the adult section of video stores. Now, porn is freely available at the click of a button — and it's not just limited to dedicated adult sites. Unsuspecting users are exposed to porn on social media platforms like X and Reddit, which are rife with X-rated content (but not so harshly regulated as porn sites). This easy accessibility means that the public are increasingly exposed to it at a younger age. Recent research shows that the average age in the UK that people first see explicit material online is 13. Concerningly, much of this material seems to depict violence, with a 2023 report finding that 79% of 18 to 21-year-olds who'd seen porn online had encountered videos portraying degrading acts, physical aggression, or sexual coercion. The effects of this have been much discussed in pop culture. In 2021, Billie Eilish famously revealed that she started having nightmares after being exposed to 'abusive' pornography from the age of 11. Meanwhile, the Netflix series Adolescence explored the consequences of young people having access to violent content online without the proper critical thinking skills to challenge certain acts, ideas, and attitudes. Beyond porn, young people are also increasingly exposed to non-consensual intimate content via terrifying 'nudify' apps and deepfake technology, which make it possible for any unsuspecting person (usually a woman) to be virtually stripped naked or superimposed into explicit videos and photos. All of this has led to a growing backlash against sexual content online — and a call for legislators to crack down on it. We can already see this happening in other counties. In Sweden, for example, live cam shows and custom-made pornographic content were banned last month. In the US, in light of age verification laws being introduced in certain US states (which critics say is a violation of privacy and a data risk), Pornhub is blocked in 17 states. Then, in May, a new bill was introduced aiming to criminalise pornography at a federal level, meaning, if passed, it could be banned across the whole of the US. And now the UK is following suit. It was already planned that from July, websites hosting pornographic content will have to run ID checks on users, but yesterday [18th June] it was confirmed that pornography depicting acts of strangulation will be made illegal in the UK, as per a government announcement. The amendment will be made to the Crime and Policing Bill — though there isn't yet a date for its implementation. The government's decision was made following an Independent Porn Review which found that media sources, including pornography, have 'effectively established choking as a 'sexual norm', and a belief that choking a partner during sex is 'safe''. This is, obviously, worrying, and it's encouraging that the government is trying to tackle the rise of non-consensual choking, which mostly affects women and girls. It's a move that's been welcomed by safety campaigners and women's charities alike, and generally viewed as a step in the right direction. But will these measures really work? Amid the dire state of sex education in the UK, is this the right focus? And, as right wing conservatism grows, is a crackdown on sexual expression actually moving us forward? Data shows sexual strangulation has been on the rise in recent years, and it seems explicit online depictions of it have contributed to this, particularly among young people. A recent survey by the Institute for Addressing Strangulation (IFAS) found that it's most common among those aged 16 to 34, with 35% of respondents saying they've been choked during sex, while 17% said it had happened without their consent. 'I've experienced choking from casual sex partners before, and not always with my consent,' 35-year-old Bryony* tells Cosmopolitan UK. 'I was having sex once with a hook-up from Hinge and he suddenly grabbed my throat. I was so shocked by it that I froze — I would have struggled to talk with his tight grip anyway. He realised by my facial expression that I was taken aback and soon let go. It was a frightening experience.' Erotic asphyxiation is a genuine sexual kink/fetish, but seems to be increasingly misunderstood and mispracticed by those who seemingly don't know what they're doing. It has also sinisterly been used as a defence in many murder trials, including the harrowing case of Grace Milane, whose killer claimed she had died as a result of choking during consensual sex. Following this trial, the 'rough sex gone wrong' defence was banned in the UK — a key step in acknowledging that women cannot consent to their own harm or murder. As mentioned, women's groups have voiced their support for the criminalisation of choking porn, with Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, saying in a press release: 'Women cannot consent to the long-term harm [strangulation] can cause, including impaired cognitive functioning and memory. Its widespread portrayal in porn is fuelling dangerous behaviours, particularly among young people.' The availability of this kind of violent porn, and porn more broadly, is why the government is introducing its age verification laws next month, as part of the Online Safety Bill, which will force any websites or platforms (presumably including social media sites) that allow pornography to introduce effective age checks. This may include users providing their driver's license or passport, credit card details, or even agreeing to facial age estimation technology. It's unclear how exactly this will work in practice, and whether sites like Pornhub will simply block access in the UK, as they have done in the US, in light of the potential privacy risks. In a statement, digital rights campaigners Open Rights Group warned: 'The roll-out of age verification is likely to create new cybersecurity risks. This could take the form of more scam porn sites that will trick users into handing over personal data to 'verify their age'.' Although the ban is well-intentioned, it's easy to announce something but much harder to implement it in practice. 'In one regard, yes, it's a good idea to [stop people seeing] anything that is clearly harmful to women. But simply banning it isn't going to solve the problem,' says Marcus Johnstone, a criminal defence solicitor at PCD Solicitors. For one, Johnstone continues, 'you can ban lawful porn sites depicting non-fatal strangulation, but then what happens? It goes underground'. There's also the issue of who the liability falls to. 'Are they criminalising the makers, watchers, possessors of the image, [or the platforms that host them]? None of that is very clear,' adds Sean Caulfield, a partner in the crime team at Hodge Jones & Allen. There's no denying that something needs to be done about rising misogyny and violence against women and girls, including non-consensual choking. But what young people really need is comprehensive sex education, including porn literacy. Banning choking porn doesn't seek to tackle the true crux of the problem. Instead, we should be ensuring that all content young people can access on the internet is safe, and that the porn they are being exposed to is appropriately regulated. 'It's clear we need far more effective legislation to ensure online safety,' says Susie McDonald, the CEO of Tender, a charity that educates on healthy relationships. 'But equally critical is the need for all children and young people to access high quality relationships education so they can understand the key tenets of healthy relationships like consent and respect — and recognise the early warning signs of abuse. 'Right now, too many simply don't have access to this vital education,' she continues. 'RSHE needs to play a key role in keeping our young people safe, online and in the real world. We have a responsibility to protect all children as early as possible.' Implementing parameters of safety around online porn, especially for impressionable young people, is key — but so is ensuring they have a full understanding of things like consent, to be able to make appropriate decisions in their own personal lives. 'Adults need to be trusted to make adult choices, but that only works if they're equipped with context and critical thinking skills,' agrees Madelaine Thomas, senior policy advisor at the Digital Intimacy Coalition. 'Porn is entertainment, not education. It is fiction and should be enjoyed as such, not as an instructional guide. Porn shouldn't be used to educate unless it explicitly labels itself as such. The key is in educating that porn is fiction and filling the gap in education to teach so that they don't look to fiction as fact.' For some, strangulation kinks are genuine, and there will be people in consenting sexual relationships who choose to engage in such acts. There is already a law banning porn depicting graphic strangulation, and incoming age verification laws that should, in theory, prevent under 18s from viewing pornography of any kind. Depictions of strangulation shouldn't be freely accessible online, but the problem goes far beyond the porn young people are watching. We urgently need comprehensive sex education, media and porn literacy, and to encourage open, judgment-free conversations about sex, relationships, and consent. There also needs to be more funding for services that work to prevent violence against women and girls, a justice system that actually achieves justice for victims of sexual violence, and education that seeks to address the rise in misogyny among young people — and the real world effects that it has.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Woman Gets Revenge on 'Snooping Neighbor,' It Leaves Internet in Hysterics
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A group of neighborhood women found an unconventional way to handle a persistent snooper in their midst—and Reddit users are loving it. The incident was detailed in a post shared by u/foodf***flee on June 17 to the r/pettyrevenge subreddit. The tale of subtle yet scathing retaliation against a nosy neighbor has earned 5,000 upvotes and dozens of comments from amused Reddit users. According to the post, titled "Snooping Neighbour Got a Taste of Their own Medicine," the story originated from the Redditor's mother and centers around a woman named Judy, whose habit of snooping through other people's homes had become a well-known nuisance in their social circle. "This is my mom's story," the user wrote. "Every week a few neighborhood ladies plan a meet-up in any one of their houses. Three weeks ago it took place at our home, and my mom caught Judy coming out of my old bedroom when she had left on the pretext of going to the washroom." Though Judy claimed she "lost her way," the excuse didn't hold up. "She had been in our home before," the post noted. That incident led the mother to consult with others in the group, who revealed similar experiences of finding Judy in unauthorized parts of their homes. When confronted, the post claimed, Judy became "rude and defensive." A stock image of a woman sticking her head out from behind a door. A stock image of a woman sticking her head out from behind a door. Getty A recent survey by Talker Research for Newsweek found that disputes among neighbors are surprisingly common, ranging from noise complaints and lawn battles to property damage, intrusions and boundary disputes. Rather than confronting Judy directly, the women in the Reddit post opted for what the poster describes a taste of her own medicine. "Last Saturday, when the get together was at Judy's place, my mother and her friends bought googly eyes stickers and one by one they left the room on pretext of washroom and pasted those stickers all around the house," the user wrote. They even stuck them on Judy's mailbox, front door, and fence. The result? "A couple of neighbors had quite a show of her breakdown on Sunday going in and out, up and down her house looking for more stickers and removing them. Pretty sure the plan worked," the post concluded. Gregg Ward, executive director at The Center for Respectful Leadership, also cautioned against retaliatory behavior. "If your neighbor doesn't behave in ways you want them to, the last thing you should do is get into a tit-for-tat battle with them," Ward previously told Newsweek. "It never ends well." Jodi RR Smith, an etiquette consultant, agreed, telling Newsweek that the situation could have been handled with more grace and boundaries. "What the mom decided to do, with the rest of the group, was just cruel," Smith said. "Judy knows she is a snoop. Judy knows the group knows she is a snoop. Now Judy knows that the group had a discussion and decided to make her the focus of their practical joke." Smith suggested a more tactful approach, recommending hosts preemptively set boundaries in a group setting, such as by saying: "As you know the bathroom is at the top of the stairs. The door is open. Please do not enter any rooms where the door is closed." "And if the behavior continues, a direct conversation is key, saying something like 'Judy, I need you to stop snooping around in my home. If this continues, I will not be able to invite you back," Smith noted. She added: "Judy now needs to decide if she will alter her behavior and if she wants this group as friends." 'Genius' Reddit users responded with glee to the mom's "petty" reaction to her neighbor's behavior. "Genius! This is the way," wrote u/goodOmen78. Another user, u/Due_Classic_4090, added: "That is so petty, I love it!!!! Hahaha." U/Fire_or_water_kai agreed, calling it a "master class in petty!" U/pc_principal_88 said: "This was actually pretty satisfying to imagine. Hopefully she gets the hint and chills tf [the f***] out when it comes to snooping thru peoples things, etc." While Judy's future status in the neighborhood group remains unclear, one Redditor, u/obscurititty404, summed up the lingering question for many, saying: "It blows my mind that she's still invited to those events!" Newsweek has contacted the original poster for comment via the Reddit messaging system. Do you have a similar story to share? Let us know via life@ and your story could be featured on Newsweek.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Why Restaurant Owner Kicked Out Mom and Her Autistic Son Backed: 'Rude'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A restaurant owner has found support online after detailing the reasons she ejected a woman and her autistic son from the establishment. The CDC says that an estimated 1 in every 31 children in the U.S. live with a type of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with boys nearly four times more likely to be diagnosed than girls. Parenting an autistic child brings with it several unique challenges, not least when it comes to activities other families might take for granted, such as eating out. However, Gina, a 55-year-old restaurateur based in New York, found her patience tested to breaking point by the actions of a child eating at her family-owned pizzeria with his mom. In a post shared to Reddit under the handle u/Mammoth_Mission_818, Gina, 51, detailed the situation that played out a few weeks ago when she noticed a 9-year-old boy "watching cartoons on his tablet at full volume" at a table with his mom. "One of the rules we have in our restaurant is that nobody is allowed to talk on speaker phone, play music out loud or have anything playing on speaker from a personal device," Gina said. When she approached the mom to request he turn off the volume as it was "disruptive to other customers." she responded "rudely" that her son had both ADHD and autism so needed to watch something to avoid kicking up a fuss while they waited. The mom also snapped at Gina when she suggested he wear headphones, claiming that he "does not like to use them." Some 10 minutes later, matters escalated further when Gina, in the kitchen at the time, started hearing "loud banging noises" coming from the dining room. "I came out to find the child furiously banging his fists on the table while the mom just sat there ignoring it," Gina wrote. When Gina asked the mom to address his behavior, she again said he was "on the spectrum" and that this was "normal behavior" if he isn't able to watch something. Then things got worse. "The boy then stood up and started running around my restaurant, punching and kicking the other tables and chairs, and knocking things over," Gina said. At this point, another customer intervened, telling the mom: "control your kid or I will." That sparked another argument, with the mom telling the fellow customer that "autistic children deserve to occupy the same spaces as everyone else." Though Gina agreed with this sentiment, she warned the woman to get her son's behavior "under control" or leave. The mom reacted with fury, telling Gina it was "illegal to discriminate." Gina's husband then came out with a to-go box and ordered the visibly "shocked" woman to pack up her meal and go. The experience has left Gina conflicted. "I love kids, my husband and I raised five of them, even one with special needs. But, autism or not, nothing gives you the right to behave this way in any setting," she said. "I'm tired of rude kids and lazy parents who embolden them to behave this way … This is not about ADHD, autism, or any other condition. This is about entitlement." What the Expert Said Amber Young, a licensed psychotherapist and the founder of Cope & Calm Counseling, told Newsweek she has some sympathy for the mother and her child. "Dining out with a neurodivergent child can be incredibly challenging—not because of the child, but because many public spaces, including restaurants, just aren't built with neurodivergent needs in mind," Young said. "These environments are often full of sensory and social challenges. Bright lights, unpredictable noises, unfamiliar smells, and the pressure to 'behave' in a certain way can quickly overwhelm a child whose brain processes the world differently. "They might cope through stimming, vocalizing, or needing to move around. These are all valid responses from a nervous system that's trying to regulate, but, unfortunately, they're often misunderstood as disruptive or 'bad behavior.'" However, Young acknowledged the son's actions left his mom in a "tight spot" in that she was trying to meet her child's needs while respecting the space they were in. In that situation, she recommended parents seek to give their child a break somewhere away from the restaurant, like just outside the door, to give them a chance to reregulate. Parents of autistic children can prepare better by using pre-taught calming tools, practicing with short visits to cafés and timing trips to coincide with a restaurant's quieter hours. Calling ahead to better prepare staff is also encouraged by Young. What Reddit Said Many of those commenting on Reddit had a different view, siding firmly with Gina. "I have an autistic son. When he was younger (he was AWFUL in restaurants. So guess what we did? We didn't go out to eat," one user wrote. "Guess what? He is a well behaved 24 year old who wasn't traumatized because he didn't get to go out to eat for a few years." Another took it further. "My kids weren't even autistic. I still couldn't take them to restaurants until they were at least 10 years old. I just wouldn't go," he said. "One time my wife wanted to treat me to a birthday dinner at a restaurant, and my 7 year old cried and whined the whole time. Worst birthday present ever." A third commented: "Autistic person here. You did good. There's a world of difference between asking for some understanding or patience and asking for the world to bend around your needs or wants. "Treating an autistic person like they're a time bomb that can't be disturbed in the slightest is how you get mildly autistic people my age freaking out on everyone because they never learned other outlets." Newsweek reached out to u/Mammoth_Mission_818 but were unable to verify the details of the case.
